|
On May 02 2011 17:48 Liquid`HayprO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:44 TheButtonmen wrote:On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:28 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:14 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 16:54 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 13:57 Swixi wrote:
-edited-
I have absolutely nothing against TL, but the fact that you think your view of fairness is objectively the best is pretty gross. Sure, switching between servers is optimal when it benefits a good amount of people, but I don't think you can necessarily purport that as the absolute truth in this specific situation; it's easily up for debate. ... Explain how that is not the objectively fairest solution then? Option 1: Everyone plays on NA Option 2: EU vs NA 50/50 eu/na, EU vs KR 100% NA, NA vs KR 50/50 KR/NA How is this not more fair? I really dont understand why its fine for me to play in lag, but as soon as its proposed that NA players play half their games under the same conditions, its suddenly unfair? Why? For the spectator here is the point of view that I think has been said by various people Option 1. Only 3 KR players have lag while Some EU players have not ideal latency but very playable according to a lot of people ( idra - playable, drewbie - zero lag). Unfair for KR. Slightly unfair for EU but ensure the highest number of players playing in as ideal condition as possible. Option 2. Much more teams have lag issues. Frustration ensue + Lower quality of play. Option 2 also means that Team Liquid has advantage in ace matches because they will never be at a disadvantage server wise. Otherwise, fair all around because everyone who plays cross server lags. Wait, why do we have an advantage in ace matches? Why is there more lag? There is not more lag, the lag is just distributed between more players. OK so theres 8 teams, so we would have played 7 matches. Lets say we use one kor player per game. So every week we have 1 laggy bo3, and KOR player has played 7 laggy series, lets say they all ended 2-0 in whatever favor, so 14 games. If we do the 50/50 solution, the KOR player has still played 7 laggy series, but only 7 laggy games. From each team we played, they will have had 1 player who had to play 1 laggy game. For the viewer the quality is unchanged. The advantage in ace matches is because no one knows before hand who will play against who. So no telling what server it will be played on. That's why every NA player from your opposition need to practice for all 3 server while from liquid, only 2 maximum. NA + home country. Lets say liquid vs dignitas. If it comes to ace, Select needs to prepare na kr eu because he doesnt know who he will play against. if its ret, he plays na eu. if tyler na only. if haypro/huk / you then its na kr. so he has to train all 3 server. Whereas for Tyler , he only need to train for 2 region ( na eu) because dignitas only has na + eu players. You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays. When it's hurting TL chances it's a big enough deal to make a stand about but when it's hurting their opponents chances it's not that big of a deal? I started this off thinking both sides were being pretty reasonable but the more we hear the more and more I'm thinking TL is being quite hypocritical and unreasonable. i think its time for u to stop thinking
I could have sworn IdrA wrote this... My head exploded trying to imagine haypro saying this IRL. Looks like such a nice guy!!!
OT: I don't see a way there can be any fairness in the end. For example a BO3 in NA-KR-NA/KR there is still that unfairness factor.
|
oh god...im late for work - i was reading through the thread! DAMN YOU!
feel a little sorry for tl, but both EG and tl have said their side of the story, but, dont think anything will change with THIS tournament - lets just hope that next time, they take what has been said as food for thought... ah crap, even more late! xD i love the 2v2, btw :D
|
On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created.
the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-)
|
On May 02 2011 18:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:
[quote]
2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics!
eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created. the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-)
Just saying, I think the poll would be a valid representation of what the community wants.
|
WC3L was at its best when it still had 2v2 and I am excited to see it. Unfortunately they eventually removed it from the tournament because the players couldn't be arsed. I think it was a clear loss for the spectator.
But you know what the other thing was that WC3L had? Qualification and relegation. I have a hard time getting excited for anything invite based anymore. It really robs tournaments of meaningfulness. Particularly when casted off replays that may have been produced in non chronological order, it just kinda turns into a series of show matches to me.
|
Also 2v2 probably needs it's own maps to be made too. I'm sure the community could make some where there's some extra help in the map design to help the games be more varied. Things like, say, a backdoor path from your base to ally's base. That could just be a gimmick for one map prehaps. But design like that helps give some more defenders advantage which is vital to making 2v2 interesting. Rocks are generally dumb in 1v1 maps currently but they could be put to good use in a 2v2 map to help slow things down. Small chokes as well, pretty important. Maybe even an island map? Just brainstorming really, but there's plenty of things that could be done to make it better.
|
I wish more tournaments would use the all-kill format, it's so much more fun to watch than this silly format.
I understand this makes the more well-rounded team win, but seriously, this is supposed to be a spectator sport and the 3-4x 1v1 + 1x2v2 format makes me fall asleep, both while playing and watching it.
|
On May 02 2011 18:10 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile.
also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created. the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-) Just saying, I think the poll would be a valid representation of what the community wants.
kellymilkies would have been drawn and quartered after her appearance on GSL.
void ray colossus builds would be banned in pvz matches.
terrans would not be allowed to stim marauders.
only a few select new rules that would be created if tl.net polls governed leagues. ;-)
|
No TL - Whatever, EGs tournament, EGs rules.
IdrA guest casting - awesome.
2v2s - Meh. I don't really like 2v2s in SC2, but maybe this will change my mind.
Looking forward to this
|
On May 02 2011 18:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:10 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created. the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-) Just saying, I think the poll would be a valid representation of what the community wants. kellymilkies would have been drawn and quartered after her appearance on GSL. void ray colossus builds would be banned in pvz matches. terrans would not be allowed to stim marauders. only a few select new rules that would be created if tl.net polls governed leagues. ;-)
Except this is a legitimate concern with this league while those were a series of whine statements.
|
Sad it's not all-kill format, but this should be exciting.
|
All-kill isn't that great in the interest of a fair team competition. Whoever has the strongest ace has an advantage regardless of the rest of their team. That's why there's more regular Proleague than Winners League in BW.
Someone made a thread about the all-kill format now everyone's going to whine about it in all new threads? Please don't.
|
On May 02 2011 18:18 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:10 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2.
also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created. the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-) Just saying, I think the poll would be a valid representation of what the community wants. kellymilkies would have been drawn and quartered after her appearance on GSL. void ray colossus builds would be banned in pvz matches. terrans would not be allowed to stim marauders. only a few select new rules that would be created if tl.net polls governed leagues. ;-) Except this is a legitimate concern with this league while those were a series of whine statements.
ironic. i am sure they thought their concerns were legitimate as well. lol.
|
On May 02 2011 18:11 eloist wrote:
WC3L was at its best when it still had 2v2 and I am excited to see it. Unfortunately they eventually removed it from the tournament because the players couldn't be arsed. I think it was a clear loss for the spectator.
But you know what the other thing was that WC3L had? Qualification and relegation. I have a hard time getting excited for anything invite based anymore. It really robs tournaments of meaningfulness. Particularly when casted off replays that may have been produced in non chronological order, it just kinda turns into a series of show matches to me.
this post says it all. You people wondering why certain teams don't make the cut.... Eg is more interested in showing an already proven spectator approved product than taking a risk on bringing in a new team even if they are argueably better. Its a cruel cycle that is bad for the sport in the longrun
As more of a viewer lately I can honestly say I would rather have qualifier brackets so I can see new talent and make up my own mind on who to cheer for, rather than having an orga telling me who I can watch and who I should be cheering for.
since beta we have been watching the same player pool face off against each other in every event. New faces almost never are given the opportunity to compete. I understand from a marketting view why this is done, but it does not mean I have to like it. I mean sgl cevo and cal have not been successful for a reason.
|
does the "cash" come in a silver briefcase? :>
|
On May 02 2011 18:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:18 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:10 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 18:04 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line. Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created. the thought that any league would run itself by a teamliquid poll scares me. ;-) Just saying, I think the poll would be a valid representation of what the community wants. kellymilkies would have been drawn and quartered after her appearance on GSL. void ray colossus builds would be banned in pvz matches. terrans would not be allowed to stim marauders. only a few select new rules that would be created if tl.net polls governed leagues. ;-) Except this is a legitimate concern with this league while those were a series of whine statements. ironic. i am sure they thought their concerns were legitimate as well. lol.
I can't tell if you are being serious anymore so I'm going to stop responding. Forcing players to "stop stimming marauders" and changing the way the format works are completely unrelated to each other.
|
TL really needs to drop this; it's getting really old.
Yes this is the best SC2 website by far but that doesn't give you the right to dictate to everyone what they should do with their tournaments and walk around with this ridiculous air of superiority.
The fact that the players aren't even performing makes it even worse.
Maybe if they were capable of dropping their ego down a few notches they might be able to learn a few things from other players and actually win stuff.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Oh well at least TL will still be playing a major part by being one of the biggest sources of viewers for this tournament they are not playing in!
|
On May 02 2011 18:32 Klive5ive wrote:
TL really needs to drop this; it's getting really old.
Yes this is the best SC2 website by far but that doesn't give you the right to dictate to everyone what they should do with their tournaments and walk around with this ridiculous air of superiority.
The fact that the players aren't even performing makes it even worse.
Maybe if they were capable of dropping their ego down a few notches they might be able to learn a few things from other players and actually win stuff.
In regards to your very own signature don't hate the TL players because they hate the conditions of the league. It's entirely in their own right to turn down the invitation.
|
On May 02 2011 18:32 Klive5ive wrote:
TL really needs to drop this; it's getting really old.
Yes this is the best SC2 website by far but that doesn't give you the right to dictate to everyone what they should do with their tournaments and walk around with this ridiculous air of superiority.
The fact that the players aren't even performing makes it even worse.
Maybe if they were capable of dropping their ego down a few notches they might be able to learn a few things from other players and actually win stuff.
I feel like 20 pages of this is enough discussion... There doesn't need to be any more fuel on this fire, if you ask me.
Requesting this thread is remade, all has been said + done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
